Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2013-11-14 18:49, Roberto Peon wrote:
>>
>> There is a means of opting out, however, which exists and is widely
>> deployed: http1
>
>
> And the WG has a mandate to develop a replacement for 1.1, called 2.0. If we
> do not indent to develop that protocol anymore, we should re-charter.
>

Very emphatic +1. So far the general sentiment of those pushing for
TLS-only seems to be "If you don't want to be forced to use TLS,
tough, you don't get to play with us then". That's not going to work.

- James

>
>> There was near unanimity at the plenary that we should do something
>> about pervasive monitoring, and while I don't believe that there were
>> any actuonable , unambiguous dieectuves , the spirit of the room was
>> quite clear. The IETF intends to attempt to do something about this.
>
>
> Yes. What we disagree on what that means for HTTP: URIs.
>
>> ...
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>